The authors appreciate the opportunity to respond to the issues raised in a review of the manuscript, "Rule-Governed Behavior and Self-Control in Children with ADHD: A Theoretical Interpretation" submitted by Leasha M. Barry and Melissa A. Kelly. Many of the points brought to light in the review are indeed useful for discussion and provide additional research directions for further model development and testing. Solely Leasha M. Barry authored portions of this response and this will be indicated as such by the use of the pronoun "I". Alternately, the final paragraph in this response was a joint effort and reflects the thoughts of both Leasha M. Barry and Melissa A. Kelly and is indicated as such by the use of the pronoun "we." Barry addresses the reviewer's comments in roughly the same order as they were raised for simplicity. The authors understand a reluctance to jump on the bandwagon for anything touted as a revolutionary, research-based panacea. However, condemning or minimizing the value of theory for improving practice suggests that practice continually improves itself in spite of theory development and hypothesis testing. When evidence is found that a theory needs to be revised or discarded altogether, the development and application of the theory does not imply failure. If learning and refinement occurs, there is value for practice, because it puts us a little closer to understanding the phenomenon they are trying to describe. If they focus only on outcomes and not on process, they may have a view of theory that is somewhat shortsighted. By grounding practice in current thinking (i.e., theory), they can achieve a greater understanding of factors that influence and improve practice, and they position themselves to refine thinking and follow a path of continuous improvement. They do not disagree that the path from theory to utility is often disjointed or even nonexistent, but it is certainly worthwhile to attempt it.